Outside Pride Lawncare Hates Faggy CBS

By consumerist.comAugust 8, 2006

Outsidepride.com. A URL worthy of a gay pride parading society. But no, don’t mistake them for part of the Rainbow Brigade! OutsidePride.com is a seed and lawn care retailer, and, in fact, they hate those damn homos.

Adam P. sent us a remarkable rant from the president of Outside Pride. He sent a homophobic manifesto to the participants of his company’s email list, trying to rally them in a full-on campaign against what Adam P. pricelessly refers to as “the whole CBS homosexual cartel” — Cold Case and Without a Trace, among others.

Troy Hake, the president of Outside Pride, and his astonishing anti-gay rant, after the jump.

This is not your typical newsletter from Outsidepride.com, Inc. In fact, this is the first one in six years which is not business related. I apologize for cluttering your inbox with an unsolicited email; however you are free to unsubscribe just by clicking the link at the bottom.

I want to share with you my television viewing experience the other night on prime time television. I ask those of you who agree with me to go to http://www.cbs.com and go to the bottom of the page, click the feedback link and express your opinion. I know the vast majority of you will agree with me as all polls indicate. We are the majority, not the minority as the liberal media would lead you to believe.

My wife and I sat down to watch television the other night with our children. Cold Case was on which is normally a fairly enjoyable show to watch; however, the last half hour of the show dealt with a young man who wished he had asked his male friend to come with him (long story short). The show ended with the two men hugging and obvious intimation they had discovered their gay feelings towards each other. The very next show was Without A Trace. The whole last half hour of this show was about two lesbians who were struggling with their feelings of lesbianism. It ended with full acceptance from one father and the two lesbians making out. Yes, they were kissing right at the end of the show on public prime time television. So much for wholesome family television.

Now, I am NOT trying to bash homosexuals and I am not a bigot; however, I feel homosexuality is morally wrong and should not be “promoted” as what is the norm for society. Text books are being rewritten as I am writing this to “highlight” every homosexual who has made a contribution to society. There are teachers who have been asked to make sure students know that, “This person in history was a homosexual.” History is being rewritten to promote homosexuality and prime time television is doing its best to make homosexuality a “normal” behavior. If homosexuality was the norm, civilization would have ceased to exist thousands of years ago. Procreation takes a man and a woman. There was Adam and then there was Eve, not Adam and Steve.

There are literally tens of thousand of you reading this email right now. If you are tired of the way public television is going let CBS know! It will only take about 1 minute of your time. Again, just go to http://www.cbs.com and click the feedback link at the bottom. It is time the majority speak up and not let the minority run this country. The majority can bring back the Christian heritage this country was founded on because it is, “In God We Trust.”

Honestly, though, how can some douchebags really think that this country is about the will of the majority? Cheap shots about the 2000 election aside, America has never been based on a “Majority Rules” mentality. You know that pledge that the Republicans like so much? The one with God in it? The last couple words are “with Liberty and Justice FOR ALL.” America is about protecting the minority FROM the majority, and if we just went with what most people want nothing would ever change. Screw civil rights and interracial marriage, hell, screw the abolition of slavery, because you can bet that Most Americans at the time would have rather stuck to the status quo.

Cold Case and Without A Trace are supposed to be “wholesome family television”? Um. They’re on at 10 PM for a reason. Anything that’s on at 10 PM is usually on then for a reason. And if you’re grown-up enough to be watching late-prime TV, you ought to be slightly more mature than to use your lawn-care service as a bloody pupit. When I want my yardwork done, I do not order it with a side of homophobic blather. See, this is why Yankees get a reputation for unfriendliness. Just cut the damn grass and leave my beloved police procedurals alone. Worry about your own soul.

Yeah, he’s got the right to say it, but if I got that newsletter from a business, I would have the right to take my business elsewhere, and you can bet I would.

Well, Troy is a highly edjicated man, as it says on the company website: Troy Hake, Co-owner. Troy has been the visionary and leading creator of Outsidepride.com. Troy has a bachelors degree in psychology and a masters degree in health education. Troy served six years working in administration in the Army Reserves and has taught Computers I, Computers II and Health Education classes in local high schools.

Even if homosexuality were totally embraced in this country, don’t gays make up like 10% of the total population?

The most recent statistic I can be bothered to find at the moment (2000 study by National Center for Health Statistics) says the average American woman gives birth to 2.1 kids. Even if half of the country turned gay overnight, our population would still be fine.

“Now, I am NOT trying to bash homosexuals and I am not a bigot; however, I feel homosexuality is morally wrong and should not be “promoted” as what is the norm for society.”

This is an oxymoron, like “jumbo shrimp”, right?

Was his hand broken, he couldn’t turn off the TV? I noticed that he didn’t say he turned it off in disgust though, did he? – no, he watched all the way until “they were kissing right at the end of the show”. Intolerant assclowns like this make me want to click through to CBS to tell them to keep up the good work :)

This guy is seriously disillusioned if he thinks “tens of thousands” of people read his idiotic drivel. And the ‘Adam & Steve’ thing is so lame I wanted to take a rusty screwdriver to my eyeballs every time I heard it in ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

The US has always been majority rules. In fact, every decision in government is made by a vote in congress or the house, and our executive branch is elected by a simple majority of electorate votes. In our judicial branch, the supreme court takes simple majority votes…the idea of protecting the minority from the majority is what is know as bleeding heart liberalism or affirmative action.

That being said, this man may be “bigoted,” but he’s right in the fact that the media shows a disproportionate amount of gay and lesbian relationships these days…perhaps they’re just making up for lost time from earlier more conservative days…but more likely that is the demographic that they are catering to.

The idea of protecting the minority from the majority is what is known as the measure of any civilized society.

I refuse to believe that you are dense enough to honestly and without equivocation state that the majority of the Supreme Court, for example, always (or even usually) reflects the majority of Americans, for reasons too numerous to go into on a simple commenting system.

I posted my own feedback on CBS.com. I don’t watch ANY of their 10pm shows, but I figured what the hell…

I have recently become aware of a newsletter circulated by the owner of a lawn-care company (OutsidePride.com) where he exhorts “tens of thousands” of his customers/subscribers to use this CBS feedback link to express outrage at the portrayal of homosexual characters on “Cold Case” and “Without a Trace.”

I am writing in hopes of cancelling out one of those misled complaints. I fully support CBS’s efforts, whether intentional or not, to portray people of ALL sexual orientations on its programs. I believe the majority of Americans, and the majority of network television viewers, is not bothered by this. What WOULD bother us is the forced sanitization and partitioning of programming to exclude characters and stories that reflect the way Americans live.

And while I’m at it, what’s with this “norm for society” business? I feel like I hear that a lot in homophobic rhetoric. I don’t think anyone’s wandering around thinking, “And once everyone’s gay, our work here is done!”–although I would respect that kind of heedless megalomania. But there seems to be this pervasive belief that one’s sexuality is contagious (if it were, wouldn’t people also be straight by virtue of exposure to straight people?). That this utterly defies logic seems to be lost on these people.

I mean, at least, “I believe in the truth of the Bible and it forbids same-sex relationships” is an approach I could respect (if I don’t in fact respect the outcome of believing that). But if you’re going to be an asshat, you ought to at least be one in a way that makes some earthly sense.

You’re right that “media shows a disproportionate amount of gay and lesbian relationships these days,” but not in the way you might expect. According to the most recent numbers from GLAAD (I would cite other sources, but GLAAD seems to be the only group that keeps numbers on these things) “LGBT characters [much less relationships] represent less than 2% of broadcast landscape” on the six major channels. Unless you’re going to suggest that less than 2% of the population is (or even self-identifies as) gay, the numbers are (unsurprisingly) heterosexually inclined. However, catering to the gay demographic would hardly be a bad decision – we’re one of the richest and most educated demos, and very few of us have those pesky kids or tithes to drain us of our disposable income. Excuse me while I go buy a new bag at Louis Vuitton.

I agree with you to an extent that there is a certain measure of “protecting the minority” that the majority must uphold to, but that protection extends to ensuring that they have the basic human liberties afforded to them by the constitution and their own rights to practice their own belief system. Any sort of “protection” beyond that is clear minority favoritism.

The United States was built partly upon the principle of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is why the Supreme Court exists (as a check against a majority of legislators passing a law to take rights from a minority) and why fillibusters have been a part of Congress for the last 165 years (so that legislation or, say, a nominee that is unacceptable in the eyes of a significant minority might be stopped despite the will of a majority). Federalist Papers No. 10 goes on about the subject at length, showing this is a principle that the founding fathers indeed wished the country to follow: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm for the full text, and a discussion of the text at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

I’m more irritated by the disproportionate amount of crime scene dramas shown on network TV. I refuse to let CBS shove its forensic investigating agenda down my throat. Whether you are gay or straight, we should all call for more diversity of plotlines and show themes on network TV.

While the existence of asshats like the flaming retard who wrote that newsletter sticks me with a pin of sharp terror, it’s a MOLTEN HAMMER OF AGONY that there are so many people, Consumerist readers no less, who don’t understand that protecting the minority’s rights from majority rule is a FOUNDING PRINCIPLE OF OUR COUNTRY. All of you who argued against that need to go a) READ, for the gods’ sakes, and b) give yourself ten swirlies in penance.

Not only is protecting the minority a founding principle, reflected in the first amendment, civil rights, structure of the government, etc., but it’s far MORE of a foundational idea than being “a nation under God” is, since the foundational documents were written almost entirely by Deists, not Xtians.

there seems to be this pervasive belief that one’s sexuality is contagious

That’s because every brainwashed closet case personally perceives it to be true. And bigots assume that everyone else is (or should be) exactly the same as them. Therefore, brainwashed bigoted closet cases must logically think that sexuality is contagious for everyone.

It was a really good episode, the one lesbian (who was Saffron on the “Our Mrs. Reynolds” episode of Firefly) was severely agorophobic, and the other lesbian had a mob-boss father. It was pretty entertaining.

Your point about the federalist papers is interesting, but I think you misinterpreted his argument.

If you were to equate “faction” with “special interest group” then Madison’s argument is that by having a large diverse representative republic (as opposed to direct democracy) which includes these factions will be essential to maintaining that minority rights will be preserved.

So the answer here, if you believe homosexuality to be a “special interest” lacking in rights, is that you need a more diverse array of representatives to ensure that said rights aren’t infringed upon.

I don’t see anything I said as arguing for a more direct democracy; the things I mention (the Supreme Court and fillibusters) are in fact clearly steps further from a direct democracy.I don’t see homosexuality as a special interest group. There are certainly homosexual interest groups out there, but homosexuals are simply a minority that have one particular difference from the heterosexual majority; not every homosexual tries to enact changes in society, and not all of them even want changes in society, so trying to make them out to be a special interest group would be dishonest (feel free to refer to a particular intrest group or agenda that purports to support homosexuals if you want to make that argument). Special interest groups (what would be factions in Madison’s paper) need to have a unifying goal; the faction we would be dealing with are those who want to limit the rights or the public depiction of homosexuals. Whether this group is a majority or not, it seems fairly clear that Madison would consider allowing this faction to limit the rights of a minority (whether or not that minority is its own faction) would be a Bad Thing ™.

@Rectilinearpropogation, The first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of expression…this curiously makes no mention of minorty or majority. In fact, there are limits to what is considered acceptable expression within the bounds of the 1st amendment (hence all the precedent in our courts), and those limitations are determined by the majority once again.

I suppose my statement was poorly worded…and I’m sorry for that. I believe that all people are entitled to the rights as laid forth by our Bill of Rights, but that is all. By “protected” I merely mean, that special interest groups do not require additional special treatment, like bleeding heart liberalism or affirmative action.

You’re preaching unnecessarily, I don’t care one way or the other for gay rights, but I do find it ridiculous to appoint special privelages and rights to special interest groups and minorities, whatever they may be. The same people who tout equal rights and justice for all expect special treatment, and it just doesn’t make sense.

Do I agree with the author of this letter? No, I do not. Do I think gays and lesbians deserve some special status for their lifestyle? No I do not.

That was my part of my point that Madison was arguing against a direct democracy. Direct democracies are inherently corrupt, claims Madison, and that’s why a large representative republic will fairly identify and ensure that all factions will be justly represented. This is the protection that all “factions” are afforded.

The basic assumption then is that the factions in question have enough support to fairly represent themselves against the majority. Federalist 10, therefore, has almost nothing to do with majority protecting the minority, but everything to do with the minority getting a fair chance at being represented against the majority.

You also have to remember it in context with political history of the United States during that time period, with splinters and different factions all arguing that their form of government was the best. Madison’s writing served to lay the foundation for a country that would be fairly represented across a broad spectrum of people who wanted their viewpoints fairly represented.

On that level there neither anything for or against Madison’s writings that purport to give special priviledge to homosexuals. If the issue, for instance, is gay rights, then Madison’s belief as laid out by Federalist 10 would serve to state that elected representatives would fairly represent those rights provided that enough people formed a unifying consensus to usher those rights to fruition.

On a flip side, one could argue that Federalist 10 doesn’t really effectively represent true minority rights at all. I wouldn’t be the first to point that out– but most people aren’t concerned with it because they assume that true minorities that can’t afford enough public sway for representation are often working against the public good. Some people would lump homosexuality into that category (along with pedophilia, polygamy, and any “deviant” behavior), but I personally wouldn’t. Does that therefore make it right to override fair representation?

Oh who cares about minority groups, anyway? There’s not that many of them! We can take ‘em!

OK, I’m teasing. I’m still unclear why there are people out there who think it is their business to decide if two consenting people can stick their whatevers into the whereevers of their partners. Y’all are arguing about protection of the minority vs. the voice of the majority, but what about that old bit about freedom from oppression and tyranny? I think this guy’s letter is definetly a violation of that.

If he was so upset about what they were showing, did he bother to turn it off, or to do something else with his son? I’m not a fan of TV. I don’t watch it because I don’t think it’s entertaining, nor does it spread ideas. The ‘news’ has become political spin and highly nonfactual. I say we just boycott the whole thing until we can get back some original ideas for shows and some journalistict integrity. Really, how many versions of CSI do we REALLY need?

..and, the US wasn’t founded as a Christian nation. That ‘one nation under God’ nonsense was added in the 50s? (can someone refresh my memory) and the country was set up specifically to separate church and state…

something_amazing:I don’t believe anyone here is arguing for special privilages for homosexuals, just that they be treated equally. The context for my bringing up the Federalist papers (which I perhaps should have been more clear about, considering how large the comments section is becoming) was a response to crayonshinobi purporting that America is simply a majority rules country. My intent in using Federalist Papers No. 10 to support this had little to do with the methods Madison discusses for keeping the majority from disenfranchising a minority and everything to do with pointing out that our founding fathers never intended America to be based on simply majority rule. From the beggining they looked to curb the power of majorities so that minorities could be certain their rights would not be taken away.“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”We could continue to discuss how Federalist Papers No. 10 relates to the methods by which minority rights are protected today (or even how the measures discussed therein may be used inappropriately to grant special privilages to a minority), but it’s taking us farther and farther from the topic of the discussion as well as my original intent in bringing it up.

On the TV (that’s television) front: Without a Trace (11pm EST) has had the teen sex parties. CSI (10p) has explored BDSM (several times) and plushy/furry fetishists, among others. I can’t speak for Cold Case.Please don’t cite Wiki as a reference…I read where elephants now outnumber people in Africa:-P

Anti-gay people have 2 very large holes in thier arguments. First and foremost, thier moral objection to gayness comes from the bible, and as a natino that beleives in the seperation of church and state, I hardly see how stripping rights of gay people is anything less than persecution based on religious beleifs.

Secondly, their whole argument stems from a couple bible quotes that sit adjacent to instructions that anyone working on a Sunday should be stoned to death. Hardly a compelling moral argument.

sounds like troy is trying to suppress his OWN feelings of homosexuality. he is so overcome with nick vera (played by hottie jeremy ratchford) that his punishment for his xxx daydreams was to write a letter. of course that won’t cure his man on man thoughts. nothing will i’m afraid.

Who’s insulting? If I had said “you’re an idiot because you think X” I would be insulting, but as it were, I was expressing my faith in your not-idiotness because I know you can’t possibly believe something as clearly wrong as what you said.

it.goes.there-I think most people would agree that your insinuations that gay people are a superior demographic because they don’t have “those pesky kids and tithes to drain their disposable income” is an insulting and wrong one.

Furthermore, your declaration of “excuse me while I go buy another Louis V…bag” is both pompous and foolish, as though to say that only gay people could afford luxury items. And this is to say nothing of your obviously insulting language referring to my statement as “wrong and only an idiot would believe such a thing, and I have faith your not such an idiot.”

You use doublespeak like the best of em, it/goes.there, but don’t think you can get away with it with me. You’re a petty and insecure person, and you’ve managed to take these posts out of the context of the article with your rantings.

I never insinuated anything, and if you read more into what I said, I can do nothing to help that. If I wanted to insult you I’d come right out and do that; on the internet, the social mores that demand subtlety and “doublespeak” don’t come into play like they would if I actually knew you.

As far as the gay demographic being superior, that’s a subjective value call. All I said (and this is true) is that gays on the whole have more disposable income than their heterosexual counterparts, due to fewer ties with family and other schemes such as religion that tend to snare a greater percentage of heteros than homos. I’m not saying we are or are not a better demographic, but certainly it is a short jump for a marketer to see “more disposable income = better group towards which we should cater our offerings.”

I don’t know why you say I’m getting emotional and ranting. I have no personal investment in the outcome of this discussion; if you continue to be wrong (or to bandy about willfully ignorant statements, since I really do find it hard to believe that anyone clever enough to operate a computer can believe that our country is based on an easy “majority rules” mindset) it doesn’t degrade me a bit. I suppose your admission that I am correct might make me just a teensy bit happy, but not as happy as wantonly spending gobs and gobs of cash. That may be pompous, but again, I didn’t say that straight people can’t do the same thing. My being a spendthrift is anecdotal, nothing more. I can’t claim to represent all the gays.

Incidentally, what I do find insulting is quoting me as saying “wrong and only an idiot would believe such a thing, and I have faith your not such an idiot.” I never typed anything so incoherent. (You’re, not your, by the way.)